Dismissed

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Limited

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016WA/1324/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A. No. 1324/2016, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal against a single judge's order. The lower court held that the dispute regarding fencing and transformer installation was a civil matter. The High Court declined to enter merits, noting the petitioner has not approached the District Collector first, but dismissed the writ appeal without specifying the exact appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Court declined to interfere without specifying the appropriate civil or administrative forum for the grievance.

M.I.George Vs Kannan Devan Hills Plantation… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 1324 of 2016 () IN WP(C).6264/2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6264/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7.6.2016

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.I.GEORGE, ARCHANA RESIDENCY, M.S.A ROAD, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATION COMPANY LIMITED, MUNNAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, K.D.H.P HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI - 685612.

¶12

2. THE MANAGER, ENGINEERING, K.D.H.P HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI - 685 612.

¶13

3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶14

4. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685612.

¶16

R BY SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R4 & 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P. PADMALAYAN R3 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,STANDING COUNSEL,KSEB

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

P.R. Ramachandra Menon & Anil K. Narendran, JJ.

¶20

¶21

W.A. No. 1324 OF 2016

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶25

Grievance is against the verdict passed by learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6264 of 2016 dated 07.06.2016, whereby the relief sought by the writ petitioner has been turned down, holding that the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. It appears that the main grievance sought to be projected before the learned Single Judge was that there was a highhanded action on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in fencing the area, which according to the appellant, is belonging to the Government and lying adjacent to the property

¶26

of the petitioner, being used by the general public as well as the appellant's customers as a parking place.

¶27

The appellant/petitioner is stated as running a Resort in

¶28

the area under the name and style 'Archana Residency'. The 1^st respondent, being the licensee, is providing electricity to the premises. By virtue of the nature of establishment of the

¶29

WA 1324/16

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

petitioner/appellant and the high requirement of electricity and

¶32

also in view of the low voltage felt in the area, the appellant/petitioner sought to install a transformer in his premises. It is stated that all the procedural formalities in this regard have been completed and necessary fees/charges have been remitted. It was accordingly that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32479 of 2015 to draw an electric line to the appellant/petitioner's building, subject to satisfaction of all the necessary formalities. The request was not initially acceded to with respect of a verdict passed by this Court in relation to the constructions being effected in the Munnar area, which was the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court, wherein an interim order of 'status quo' was ordered. But, following the course already pursued by this Court in similar circumstances, the above writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment, directing the concerned respondent to do the needful, to install a new transformer “in the premises of the petitioner” pursuant to the sanction granted as per Ext.P4 mentioned therein, making it clear that such installation of the transformer in the premises of the petitioner

¶33

WA 1324/16

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

will not be construed as a pronouncement upon the legality of the construction put up by the petitioner and that the same would be subject to the result of the case pending before the Supreme Court.

¶36

The appellant/petitioner thereafter turned up before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6264 of 2016, pointing out that steps being pursued by respondents 1 and 2 to install a new transformer would adversely effect the right and interest of the petitioner in such a manner that the access to the petitioner's resort will be prevented, besides causing hindrance to enter the neighbouring property which belongs to the Government. The prayers raised in the writ petition (as amended) are in the following terms :

¶37

“(i) Set aside the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2016 in W.P (C).No.6264/2016 by allowing this Writ Appeal in the interest of justice.

¶38

(ii) Issue appropriate orders to grant appropriate reliefs deemed fit and proper for the ends of justice. (iii) Award cost of the appeal.”

¶39

While the matter came up for further consideration

¶40

before the learned single Judge, it was noted that the nature of

¶41

WA 1324/16

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

pleadings and prayers put forward were not liable to be entertained in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the dispute, if any, against fencing of the property by the respondents 1 and 2 was a matter which had to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, which in turn is under challenge in this appeal.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3^rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.

¶45

In the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the exact grievance was not properly adverted to by the learned single Judge and that no remedy can be availed before the Civil Court by virtue of Section 14 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Land) Act, 1971. Reference is also made to Section 12 of the Act. The learned counsel points out that all powers of Civil Court are vested with the District Collector and it was in the said circumstance that the

¶46

WA 1324/16

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

District Collector and the Revenue Department were impleaded as the additional respondents to the writ petition. It was without getting any report from the District Collector or from such other competent authority, that the matter was finalised declining interference and hence the grievance.

¶49

This Court does not intend to deal with the merits of the case, as the nature of grievance and the relief sought for in relation to the right to park vehicles in the nearby premises, which admittedly does not belong to the appellant, is a matter which is to be considered by other appropriate forum. The rights, if any, are to be established with reference to the facts and figures and pleading and evidence to be let in, which exercise cannot be done by this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶50

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the disputed land actually belongs to them, which is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. If at all any dispute is there for the appellant or others concerned over the land in question, it is always open for the aggrieved parties to move appropriate forum so as to redress the

¶51

WA 1324/16

¶52

-:6:-

¶53

grievance. This Court finds that, as per Ext.P7 judgment, the installation of Transformer had to be made in the premises of the petitioner and if the verdict has not been given effect to by the respondents concerned, it is always open for the aggrieved parties to move the Court by way of appropriate proceedings. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the appellant/petitioner has not approached the District Collector so far, by filing any petition/representation.

¶54

However, it is made clear that the observation made by learned single Judge in the judgment under challenge, that the remedy of the petitioner lies before the 'Civil Court' would only mean that it is not for this Court to entertain the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution; but elsewhere. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the appellant to move appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance in tune with the relevant provisions of law, interference is declined and the appeal is dismissed.

¶55

It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the forum to be approached; whether it be the Civil Court, Special Tribunal(Munnar), District Collector or

¶56

WA 1324/16

¶57

-:7:-

¶58

such authority. It is open for the parties to move before the

¶59

competent forum/authority.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.R. Ramachandra Menon Judge

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Anil K. Narendran Judge

¶64

ttb/11/07

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employment Provident Fund Commissioner Vs D. Janamma

Shibu Mathew Vs Ouseph Devasia & Another

Sri. Jayakumar C.K Vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Union of India Vs K.Reghupathy

Kitco Vs Green Method Engineering (P) Ltd.

Union of India & Others Vs K.Reghupathy & Another